#25 - When a group is unable to reach a consensus

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

This author discusses a scenario in which a group has trouble arriving at an agreement; those
who cannot achieve a consensus are often called “stubborn, bullheaded, or unyielding.” These
accusations, the author points out, are often considered malicious, they can be hard to prove, and
they are not often constructive in achieving any resolution.

The author then says that if you wish to make effective use of this tactic, the best accusation would
be that of “unyielding,” because if you admit that someone has not yielded, you must admit that
person should fall under the category of “unyielding.”

The question that accompanies this stimulus asks for the author’s method of reasoning. The correct
answer choice must accurately describe the stimulus’ argumentation.

Answer choice (A): The author does not completely reject a tactic, but simply points out that a given
tactic is rarely constructive. The author doesn’t specifically take issue with the character attack,
nor is there any mention of substance. Since this choice fails to describe the author’s method of
reasoning, it should be ruled out of contention.

Answer choice (B): The author discusses a tactic used in response to a group’s failure to reach a
consensus. The author does not reject the tactic, but instead just points out that the tactic is rarely
helpful, and the author does not claim that the tactic causes the group’s failure to reach consensus.

Answer choice (C): The author does not discuss the respective degrees of offensiveness associated
with each accusation, but instead points out that one of the accusations is particularly easy to defend.
Since this choice is not accurate, it cannot be the right answer to this Method of Reasoning question.

Answer choice (D): The author does not claim that taking the tactic discussed will help the group
reach consensus; indeed, the author specifies that this is not often helpful. Rather, the author says
that if one is going to accuse someone of being unyielding, bullheaded, or stubborn, “unyielding” is
the accusation that is easiest to defend.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The author points out that if you must
accuse someone of being one of the attributes listed, “unyielding” is the easiest to defend, because
you can’t accept the premise that one has not yielded without also accepting the conclusion that the
accused is “unyielding.”

[Arindom]

Hi,

What is the simplest way to make sense of the statement "conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument for which one could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion?"

For this question, I picked ans choice C because the argument advocates the use of the term "unyielding" because when confronted with a stubborn member such a term appeals to the fact that the member has not yet yielded. Thus, this is less offensive than the alternatives (as mentioned in the first premise where members are accused of being stubborn, bull-headed or unyielding).

Thanks.
- Arindom

[Nikki Siclunov]

Arindom,

There is no evidence that "unyielding" is less offensive than "stubborn" or "bull-headed." The author is not comparing the epithets in terms of their offensiveness, nor is she making an argument that less offensive epithets are preferable. Examine closely the rationale for arguing that "unyielding" is the preferable term - it cannot be disputed or denied. If your opponent hasn't yielded on an issue, he or she is, technically, unyielding. Thus, the author is advocating a tactic (call your opponents "unyielding"!) on the grounds that it results in an argument for which one could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion. This is another term for a valid argument: an argument for which you cannot accept the premises but deny the conclusion. If you accept the premise as true (you haven't yielded on the issue), then you must accept the conclusion as true (you are "unyielding").

Hope this helps a bit!

[bk1111]

Hi, can someone elaborate on why D is incorrect? I think I wrongly equivocated "reaching a consensus" in the answer choice with "reach a resolution" in the stimulus. Is there another reason that D is wrong?

[Ricky_Hutchens]

Hi bk1111,

D is wrong because it states that the stimulus is advocating a position that will help the group reach a consensus on the issue in question. The issue in question is what the members are being unyielding on, and the stimulus offers nothing to help the group come to a conclusion on that. It is concerned with getting the members to agree that they are unyielding.

Hope that helps.

[queenbee]

Hi
I really dont understand what this means: "on the grounds that it results in an argument for which one could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion. This is another term for a valid argument: an argument for which you cannot accept the premises but deny the conclusion. If you accept the premise as true (you haven't yielded on the issue), then you must accept the conclusion as true (you are "unyielding")."

It seemed that the stimulus is saying that the target recipient of the term "unyielding" was more acceptable, but what does that have to do with the conclusion. And which conclusion are they talking about? How does this reference the consensus? How is this different than calling someone stubborn? I selected (C) because it seemed that the stimulus indicated that it is easier to prove than by calling someone stubborn or bullheaded. To me it suggested that it was more "digestible" where as the other terms were derogatory.

Thank you

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi queenbee,

The conclusion they are talking about in answer choice (E) is the argument and conclusion of the group members, not the author. The group member cannot both fail to yield and not be unyielding. Unyielding means failing to yield. So as long as the group member does not yield, they cannot deny the conclusion they are unyielding. The stimulus doesn't mean that unyielding is less derogatory, but that it's something that is just the definition of the action the group member is taking. If you call someone "stubborn" you can argue if the behavior is stubborn or not. But if you are refusing to yield (or change your position) you are unyielding. It doesn't require judgment or any sort of dispute. The accusation of unyielding is a direct description of the behavior, behavior that the unyielding group member would admit they are engaging in.

For example, imagine you are arguing with a friend over where to get dinner---sushi and pizza. Your friend thinks sushi is a good idea and does not want to give up. You might want to call her stubborn, but that has an implication that the refusal to change her mind is unreasonable. Unyielding just means that she isn't changing her mind. There's nothing else to the term other than the description of what she's doing.

Hope that helps!